We can already see that happening. It was working age population demands that prompted these very same European nations to open up their immigration laws under the, now provably false, assumption that immigrants from a distinctly different racial, religious and cultural background would be willing to asimulate into the host culture.

I thought it was the host culture's unwillingness to assimilate was the critical factor.

I think that "Demographic winter" is a serious hypothesis that should not be ignored.

I wasn't suggesting that anyone ignore it. Regardless of the long term trendline, the short term has very real effects upon us now. I was merely highlighting the greater perspective.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

We can already see that happening. It was working age population demands that prompted these very same European nations to open up their immigration laws under the, now provably false, assumption that immigrants from a distinctly different racial, religious and cultural background would be willing to asimulate into the host culture.

I thought it was the host culture's unwillingness to assimilate was the critical factor.

Certainly not. Many of these same nations openly oppose the development of 'parallel cultures', Germany's opposition to homeschooling being a big example. They go out of their way to help immigrants assimilate, in ways that the US does not. There are just some cultures that cannot coexist without some degree of 'culture clash'. We in the US are accustomed to some degree of 'culture clash' being a self-described "melting pot", but that contributes to our higher overall crime rates. Europe is getting there faster than they can adjust, and that could be it's undoing.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

It's very common to denounce the "digging ditches" fallacy as an absurd way for keynesianists to try to improve work market by offering useless jobs.

There is deep seated fallacy in the collective consciousness of Jewish/Christian/Islamic societies regarding the morality of money.

The widespread view is that money is somehow related to effort and that those that put in the most effort are morally deserving of the most money.

This approximation might have been applicable to some extent in an agrarian society of 2000 years ago, but in the modern information economy it is not even approximately true. Those who make the most money are of course not those who put in the most effort but those who generate the most marginal utility, and this ability is becoming increasingly decoupled from effort.

A famous formulation of this fallacy is Marx' Labour Theory of Value, but there are several other versions of it on both sides of the political spectrum. It's a meme that remains surprisingly robust even in 2010.

I have always found it absurd how unproductive members of society who have made leisurely pursuits their life goal are despised by mainstream opinion, while equally unproductive members who outwardly project the image of effort for effort's sake, are respected.

It's very common to denounce the "digging ditches" fallacy as an absurd way for keynesianists to try to improve work market by offering useless jobs.

There is deep seated fallacy in the collective consciousness of Jewish/Christian/Islamic societies regarding the morality of money.

The widespread view is that money is somehow related to effort and that those that put in the most effort are morally deserving of the most money.

This approximation might have been applicable to some extent in an agrarian society of 2000 years ago, but in the modern information economy it is not even approximately true. Those who make the most money are of course not those who put in the most effort but those who generate the most marginal utility, and this ability is becoming increasingly decoupled from effort.

A famous formulation of this fallacy is Marx' Labour Theory of Value, but there are several other versions of it on both sides of the political spectrum. It's a meme that remains surprisingly robust even in 2010.

I have always found it absurd how unproductive members of society who have made leisurely pursuits their life goal are despised by mainstream opinion, while equally unproductive members who outwardly project the image of effort for effort's sake, are respected.

Yep, exactly.

Play Bitcoin Poker at sealswithclubs.eu. We're active and open to everyone.

I have always found it absurd how unproductive members of society who have made leisurely pursuits their life goal are despised by mainstream opinion, while equally unproductive members who outwardly project the image of effort for effort's sake, are respected.

I don't get your point.

I didn't want to talk about any morality of money. What I am saying is that nowadays brains are not used to produce wealth, but only to gain the right to enslave people (I'm exagerating a bit to make my point clearer).

In a extreme version of this, society would be divided in two parts : people whom intellingence would have been detected during youth with IQ tests, and other "dumb" people. The formers would have the right not to work in life. They would just collect the fruit of the labor done by the latters. This fruit of labour would be stolen via organized force.

I see lots of videos always throwing around the broken window fallacy. But despite that, the link here is tenuous at best. The broken window fallacy (better known as the parable of the broken window) actually refers to the consequences of destroying others property. It isn't really a fallcy either in the common sense of the word. That's unrelated to your point that all discovery would have eventually happened.

That's not the lesson that Bastiat taught. You're missing the point..Destroying windows mean that window maker benefit, but the shoemakers would have to spend it on replacing window rather than buying shoes. The lesson here is about the fact that "making work" doesn't mean increased productivity or greater wealth to society and individuals as a whole.

You need to encourage an free intellectual atmosphere so that science will prosper. In the past, nobles and rich persons would fund scientists & mathematicians, since they were seen as a type of art. Their followers were seen as artisans. You can't pick and choose the science/tech you do want- it doesn't work that way.

I can't understand why you would attack intellectuals who choose to work in academia over the larger pay they would receive working in industry. If it's bad then it's benign compared to other government industries like war.

If you still believe that discoveries all eventually will arise, then why through history did some civilisations discover some things that others didn't? Western civilisations had boats when the Incans didn't although Incans had an advanced culture to rival any other. Or the Chinese who had firearms a full 2 centuries before Europe. You can find many examples and they show that not every discovery is bound to happen.

On the contrary, I am not against academia, or dynamic innovative culture, or any of that stuff. What I am merely against is coercion.

I believe that we should fund academia, if such is a good thing in the first place, with money voluntary donated or paid from the people.

You need to encourage an free intellectual atmosphere so that science will prosper.

Then do it. With YOUR money. YOUR work. Don't force people to do the same.

You can't make laws on assumptions like that. You can't say :

"If we don't do this, then that will happen, and it would be not good."

It would be too easy. This is almost similar to blackmailing. It reminds me the banking system, crying for some money from the government : "If you don't give us 700 G$, it's gonna be the end of the world...". Are we supposed to just believe it and comply ?? No way.

Your predictions about what would happen if we do or do not something, are no justification for taxation. Therefore I won't even try to explain to you why I disagree about your belief in government being necessary for scientific progress. It would be irrelevant.

When you are rich you have a layer of insulation from the world that blinds you from the hardships and bad luck of the poor. Contrary to what you think, they're not lazy scroungers.

You can't have a healthy body if the head is well but the legs are sick. Likewise a society needs everyone to be well to benefit the whole. Many movers and shakers come from a poverished background and it's the responsibility of the more well off in a society to help them transgress class boundaries. I don't know why or when it became fashionable to be selfish bastards, but it's disgusting.

I didn't say anything about the poor being lazy scroungers. That's YOUR words. I don't have anything against helping the poor and so on.

But, I am against stealing. Taxation is a form of stealing. It's wrong, period. Like I said, it doesn't matter if you tax the poor or the rich. Nobody deserve to have their property being stolen, no many how selfish you are or how rich or poor you are.

But, I am against stealing. Taxation is a form of stealing. It's wrong, period. Like I said, it doesn't matter if you tax the poor or the rich. Nobody deserve to have their property being stolen, no many how selfish you are or how rich or poor you are.

To be clear, for the benefit of our resident trust fund baby who travels the world meeting poor people; taxation is by it's nature, the use or threat of force to compel someone to support a social structure that they would not do so otherwise. This may be a neccessary evil, but it is still evil; so the ideal answer for society is to limit the government to a set few functions that can only be performed with the use of collective force. Aid of the poor is not one of those functions, as there are other solutions that have been successful in the past.

It is ignorace of the nature of governments, that they are constructs that are developed (even in democratic societies) to manage and direct the "legitimate" use of violence, that is leading to the breakdown of civil society in Europe as well as the United States. This is the only purpose of armies, courts and law enforcement anywhere in the world; the only difference between such a government in a modern Western democracy and a third world dictator is who gets to decide what is a legitimate use of that force.

As such, governments everywhere are notoriously bad at managing social support networks, (because it's it beyond their realm of expertise) while generally being quite effective at the functions of government wherein controlled violence is the primary objective, such as warfighting and border defenses.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

That's interesting, but not uncommon for children of wealthy origins to rebel against what their own family represents, and their actual family members. It doesn't negate my statement. I was being factious, as I have no knowledge of your background, but just because you may have rejected your family doesn't mean that there isn't a trust fund waiting for your return to the family fold.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

But, I am against stealing. Taxation is a form of stealing. It's wrong, period. Like I said, it doesn't matter if you tax the poor or the rich. Nobody deserve to have their property being stolen, no many how selfish you are or how rich or poor you are.

I see it more like a maintenance fee for a condominium that happens to be a regional monopoly.